Dismissed

Rahul Alias Rd v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Jul 2024CRM-M/28214/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought under Section 438 CrPC in FIR alleging a premeditated armed attack by about twenty persons on the complainant and Ram Mehar. The petitioner was nominated via a co-accused's disclosure statement, but CCTV footage showed his participation. Anticipatory bail refused and the petition dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rahul Alias Rd Vs State of Haryana — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

CRM-M-28214-2024

¶2

-1-

¶3

102 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-28214-2024 Decided on:02.07.2024

Rahul @ RD

.... Petitioner

versus

State of Haryana

.... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

¶11

Present: Mr. Sunil Kumar Goswami, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Rahul Mohan, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

¶13

¶14

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. (Oral)

¶15

Instant petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.PC for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.15 dated 13.01.2024 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 452, 294, 367, 307, 506, 427 IPC (Sections 325 and 307 IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Narwana District Jind.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that too on the basis of a disclosure statement suffered by co-accused Nitish @ Nitesh; the evidentiary value of such disclosure statement is of weak nature and is in fact inadmissible in evidence. It has been further contended that even as per the disclosure statement on the basis of which the petitioner has now been nominated as an accused, the only role attributed to him was of being handed over the weapon of offence i.e. an iron rod, by the accused after the crime in question. It has still further been argued that neither the

¶17

SONIA BURA 2024.07.05 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-28214-2024

¶19

-2-

¶20

petitioner was present at the place of occurrence nor has been attributed any role much less any injury upon the complainant. In the circumstances, the petitioner be extended the concession of anticipatory bail as he is ready to join investigation and cooperate with the investigating agency.

¶21

Learned State counsel, however, has vehemently opposed the prayer and submissions made by the counsel opposite by inviting the attention of this Court to the allegations levelled in the FIR, which has been annexed as Annexure P-1. It has been submitted that in the occurrence in question as many as 20 persons came to the house of the complainant in two cars; some of the assailants have criminal antecedents and were out on parole on the date of occurrence. After trespassing into the house of the complainant, they attacked him and his family and thereafter kidnapped one Ram Mehar, who was then taken to the dairy of co-accused Nitish where he was threatened with dire consequences. People from the neighbourhood intimated the police, who arrived at the spot and saved the complainant and others from the accused persons. Besides this, the accused party while fleeing stole mobile handset, motorcycle, scooty and certain gold ornaments from the house of the complainant. It has also been submitted on instructions that the investigating agency had retrieved CCTV footage from the vicinity of the place of occurrence wherein all the accused including the petitioner were seen inflicting injuries upon the complainant and Ram Mehar.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material available on record.

¶23

SONIA BURA 2024.07.05 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CRM-M-28214-2024

¶25

-3-

¶26

Prima facie , it appears to be a pre-mediated attack wherein all the accused came to the spot armed with lethal weapons in two cars and thereafter, inflicted multiple injuries on the complainant and Ram Mehar. There are serious allegations levelled against the petitioner of being an active participant in the crime in question; though he has been nominated as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement allegedly suffered by co-accused, however, his presence at the place of occurrence is reflected in the CCTV footage.

¶27

In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, this Court does not deem it fit to extend the extra-ordinary concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.

¶28

However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

¶29

02.07.2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) sonia JUDGE

¶30

Whether speaking/non-speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No

¶31

SONIA BURA 2024.07.05 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Rahul Alias Rd v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rahul Alias Rd v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harpal Singh Vs State of Haryana

Milan Vs State of Punjab

Arshdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Balwinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Arjan Singh @ Manu @ Niku Vs State of Punjab

Vikas Bansal Vs State of Punjab